You would first need to re-drill the bracket for the shaft bearing and mounting screws. Then the legs of the bracket would no longer be on the block. And of course that would mean you would need to modify the bearing holes to regain proper clearance with .812 tires. But the main point is a vast majority of existing chassis would need major reconstruction to make all this happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

MSwiss and NSwanberg like this

Mike McMasters460 Wilson RdColumbus, OH 43204(614) 274-5150Home of the ORIGINAL American blue King

Butch,
That would work if you wanted to run .100"- 125" clearance in the rear, with legal size tires.

Or change the rules to allow much smaller tires.

Edit- unless you're talking about having the motor sit up level, but high above the chassis plane.

Mike, this is the statement I've been referring to. It doesn't matter if you use your bracket or a regular "non-hypoid bracket angled down the pinion end of the motor is still going to be the same height off the track. If the motor in your bracket is already raised by the bracket and you have to raise the bracket another .050" for clearance, what's the difference?

Mike M., you won't have to alter the holes in the bracket if you use a "non-hypoid" bracket.

I am not arguing the length of the motor, I'm only pointing out that Swiss' bracket mounts the motor at the pinion end as high as a "NON-HYPOID" bracket does.

Jim "Butch" Dunaway

Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

When you are dead, you don't know you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
It's the same when you are stupid.

Mike, this is the statement I've been referring to. It doesn't matter if you use your bracket or a regular "non-hypoid bracket angled down the pinion end of the motor is still going to be the same height off the track. If the motor in your bracket is already raised by the bracket and you have to raise the bracket another .050" for clearance, what's the difference?

Mike M., you won't have to alter the holes in the bracket if you use a "non-hypoid" bracket.

I am not arguing the length of the motor, I'm only pointing out that Swiss' bracket mounts the motor at the pinion end as high as a "NON-HYPOID" bracket does.

Along with the front being much lower, the back of the motor, while not nearly as much, is also lower, as the whole motor pivots down.

To say it isn't would require a jog, or Z bend, in the motor itself. Lol

If anyone is curious you can get some or one to test and draw your own conclusions. They can be had at Professor Motor......NRS 3030 EVO Balanced Motor for $17.99. They have 40 in stock. I got mine from some other home set mail order place, but I don't recall the name. Easily found on the internet.

Put it/them in a car and see what you find out. If it doesn't ring your chimes...well then...you built a car that was fun to build and drive. Isn't that what drew us to hobby in the first place?

Along with the front being much lower, the back of the motor, while not nearly as much, is also lower, as the whole motor pivots down.
To say it isn't would require a jog, or Z bend, in the motor itself. Lol

Mike, I believe I understand how the hypoid differs from the non-hypoid.
Might a diagram of each (maybe overplayed) make it clear to those that do not grasp the concept?

Mike, let me ad that I think your bracket is a very good bracket and should eliminate the need for wheel blanks to set chassis height if they are designed right and make it easier to construct a chassis. They also give you more material to solder to over a standard non-hypoid bracket on an angle. But they don't lower the motor anymore than a non-hypoid bracket at an angle does.

Jim "Butch" Dunaway

Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

When you are dead, you don't know you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
It's the same when you are stupid.

Mike I am not talking about moving any holes at all. I would file the bottom of the side below the holes moving the motor and the axle at the same time. then I need to use jig wheels and a Jig motor to get the clearance correct. The motor to axle relation would never change. depending on amount removed from the bottom of the bracket sides I may or may not need more bracing.

The thing is your bracket works great with very little adjusting on the motors we use. This is all about we could build cars for the long motors, and everyone knows we could.

That bracket is just a non hypoid bracket with the length and angle of the sides below the axle holes adjusted to create the motor tilting effect.

Mount any length motor you want in the bracket and give me a minute with a file. It will work.

The problem with the long motors is the number of cars we have built for shorter motors.

But while you could file the bracket holes to make the motor fit, it would no longer have the aligned gear mesh, unless you carefully change the angle of the whole mounting face.

Just making the holes higher will put the arm shaft above the axle C/L, in a reverse hypoid, non optimum, gear mesh.

Just putting my finger in this fan ...

If 'I' were building a chassis with a C/L bracket and a longer motor, I would (looking from the left side of the car) rotate the motor clockwise around the rear axle to raise the front of the motor and file the rear corner of the bracket to obtain clearance under the rear of the bracket .

Mike, I have been talking about "your" bracket since my post #20. Not motor length or modifying existing chassis. You're saying your bracket lowers the motor more than using a standard non-hypoid bracket and putting it on an angle, I say it's the same thing.

Your bracket would definitely be easier to do this and if designed right would also serve as jig wheels.

Eddie is right "I guess we all need to know and understand what we are all talking about. :wacko2:"

But to get all the weight of the motor down as low as you can just use a hypoid bracket and take a pair of pliers and bend the motor shaft up till it lines up with the center line of the axle. Now your gears will mesh perfectly and all the weight will be down as low as you can get it.

Jim "Butch" Dunaway

Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

When you are dead, you don't know you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
It's the same when you are stupid.

Mike, I have been talking about "your" bracket since my post #20. Not motor length or modifying existing chassis. You're saying your bracket lowers the motor more than using a standard non-hypoid bracket and putting it on an angle, I say it's the same thing.

I never said such a thing.(that it's lower)

I refer to my bracket as an angled bracket in post #6.

In your post #20 , you refer to the angled bracket as some new phenomena to you.

"I am not arguing the length of the motor, I'm only pointing out that Swiss' bracket mounts the motor at the pinion end as high as a "NON-HYPOID" bracket does."

I was answering the above passage, where you don't state "angling down".

That's answering your statement;
"Tony, couldn't you accomplish the same thing with a straight inline bracket (non-hypoid) and then it wouldn't matter how long the motor was?"

You don't say anything about angling it.

Without specifying that, I assume you are talking about something like a JKD321 bracket, where the motor shaft is aligned, but the whole motor sits parallel to the ground, and above the bottom of the chassis.

My bracket is essentially a JKD321, angled, with the sides trimmed, to sit even with the bottom of the chassis, to give the longest surface possible, to solder your rails to.

I never purported it to me anything but that.

Of course, new chassis could be built for these long motors.

My point is guys with their $135 Bartos and Tony P chassis, aren't going to be real excited to send their chassis in, and pay for a major reworking.

An example of the impracticallity of it, looking at the F1 podium cars, from the Checkpoint, regardless of the style of bracket, none of the chassis will accomodate a longer motor.

They all have their rear body mount, across, and closely in front, of the motor.

Especially for a motor, a luminary like Bryan Warmack has already tested, declared meh, and pointed out it burnt a coil.